If it depends on the kid wearing a "water activated" wristband of some sort, it's a bit of a non-starter. The kid learns first that if he drags his arm through the water, big excitement ensues. Next he learns that if he takes the wristband off and throws it in the pool, even greater amusement ensues. Finally, the parents get rid of the thing out of irritation.
Interesting. What's the ratio of psychopathy between men and women and doers this account for the sex population discrepancy at the CxO level? Also, does tech have more, less, or the same amount of psychopathy as other sectors?
All the "liberal media" does is publicize the fact that a company is having problems in the diversity area. If that's able to "scare off all your advertisement or customers", it's probably because the majority of the company's advertisers and/or customers find that information to be risky or objectionable. And, if you're the company with this risky and/or objectionable attribute, you might want to consider doing better in the diversity area rather than digging in.your corporate heels.
However, I'm not quite sure where the "scaring off" part comes in - withholding one's custom when one is displeased with a company's behavior seems to me to be a prudent and rational response to that information.
Since when has hypocrisy been a crime in government? Besides, just because you're raping someone's baby doesn't make it OK for their parent to rape yours. Unless you think that tit-for-tat is the highest moral stance anyone should strive for.
And so what if they funded a couple of Hillary rallies - the question is no longer whether the Russians interfered, but "Who on this side (if anyone) were colluding with them?" The fact that electing Trump might not have been the sole thing on the Russians' minds means nothing - the crime is in the collusion, not the intent of the collusion. These rallies are just a red herring thrown out by Russian trolls and their dupes. I'm sorry you were so gullible as to be taken in.
At this point, I just figure that anyone who posts idiocy about the Russians not hacking the US is either a Russian shill or one of their dupes. Either that, or they're so soaked in conspiracy theories that their brains are addled. It's really no use listening to them. Once you decide that false information is as good as real facts, your mind might as well be gone.
And for the idiots referenced above who say that all this Russsia stuff is "fake", I'll take the CIA, FBI, and NSA's word about spying before any of you conspiracy-spouting morons in the peanut gallery - I do value professionalism, if nothing else.
No. Unless somehow your corporate security requires a lot more than the Fortune 500 companies I've worked at, plus all of the smaller ones.
About the only places I've seen normally needing "no phones" security are locations requiring high security by the government or AV labs. Anything else for most companies is paranoid overreach and a grave breach of common sense. Anything else between "no phones" and "take pictures and recording of everything" can be dealt with by legal agreements and consequences.
Ultimately, that's true for any company that doesn't have techies up to the CEO level. At some point, someone who has no clue about IT will be doing the hiring of (at least) IT management.
If it wasn't the Chinese selling the Ecuadorans the gear, it would be the Israelis or the Europeans or us. It's not like this stuff is exactly uncommon these days.
They probably got it cheaper buying direct from the original manufacturer.
Does it matter if Bob Cratchet is a contractor or FTE? Either way, Scrooge is looking to get rid of him as soon as he can. It's the power imbalance in the system that's the problem, not the specifics of the employment contract.
What is your view on this "forced subscription" model?
From the point of view of the company that actually owns the software, it's great - lower customer service cost, a guaranteed revenue stream, and no bullshit like license audits. What's not to like?
Oh - you don't own the software? You don't like their licensing? Well, their license is all you ever had - at least legally. And you can still run those old versions that you "own" - just on insecure, out-of-date OS'es.
What - you don't like those options? (There really is no pleasing customers) Too bad - enough people like Adobe and Autocad's products that they're willing to pony up the monthly fee to have access to specifically those products (Try to get a Photoshop user to switch to Gimp). And there's more than enough users to keep Adobe and Autocad in business.
I guess that the bottom line is that if you don't actually own your own tools (which you haven't since forever), you don't have a lot of legal right to complain. Or really any economic right - I mean most other users are OK enough with the licensing scheme not to switch - what's wrong with you?
It's the corporation's software - they own it and license it to you. If you don't like the license terms, don't use the software.
Is it just my impression that Intel didn't do squat during the past half year, and only started searching for fixes now that the vulnerabilities are public?
I'm sure Intel did all the things with respect to the patch - set up project management, got the build system in order, prepared the branding strategy, and carefully examined the problem legally. You want technical issues fixed? That happens after the project is set up in companies as large as Intel.
All you should need to do is shove the name of the kid's high-school, their high-school grades, a list of extracurricular activities, their facebook feed, and their essay into an AI application and let it do the deciding based on those. Could be much more efficient and accurate than admissions officers and their shortcuts (which is what the tests are).
Yes. Not only can you buy puts on BTC,as well as shorting long options. However, both markets have relatively high volatility, so the costs to invest in these instruments could be a bit high for a while. Also not to mention the old saying that "The market can stay irrational longer than a man can stay solvent, " which should be observed in all cases.
but it bore the man's signature, so it's not like you would assume it isn't real.
But it didn't - it bore a forgery of the man's signature by the tattoo artist. Unless he took the tattoo pen himself and signed his name on his own chest (quite interesting feat, if you ask me), it's not his legal signature.
Slashdot Mirror
If it depends on the kid wearing a "water activated" wristband of some sort, it's a bit of a non-starter. The kid learns first that if he drags his arm through the water, big excitement ensues. Next he learns that if he takes the wristband off and throws it in the pool, even greater amusement ensues. Finally, the parents get rid of the thing out of irritation.
Nothing like the early echo of wardrums in the morning.
Interesting. What's the ratio of psychopathy between men and women and doers this account for the sex population discrepancy at the CxO level? Also, does tech have more, less, or the same amount of psychopathy as other sectors?
All the "liberal media" does is publicize the fact that a company is having problems in the diversity area. If that's able to "scare off all your advertisement or customers", it's probably because the majority of the company's advertisers and/or customers find that information to be risky or objectionable. And, if you're the company with this risky and/or objectionable attribute, you might want to consider doing better in the diversity area rather than digging in.your corporate heels.
However, I'm not quite sure where the "scaring off" part comes in - withholding one's custom when one is displeased with a company's behavior seems to me to be a prudent and rational response to that information.
We can't even get the basics right.
Quite a few character, word, and speech recognition algorithms would disagree.
Since when has hypocrisy been a crime in government? Besides, just because you're raping someone's baby doesn't make it OK for their parent to rape yours. Unless you think that tit-for-tat is the highest moral stance anyone should strive for.
And so what if they funded a couple of Hillary rallies - the question is no longer whether the Russians interfered, but "Who on this side (if anyone) were colluding with them?" The fact that electing Trump might not have been the sole thing on the Russians' minds means nothing - the crime is in the collusion, not the intent of the collusion. These rallies are just a red herring thrown out by Russian trolls and their dupes. I'm sorry you were so gullible as to be taken in.
At this point, I just figure that anyone who posts idiocy about the Russians not hacking the US is either a Russian shill or one of their dupes. Either that, or they're so soaked in conspiracy theories that their brains are addled. It's really no use listening to them. Once you decide that false information is as good as real facts, your mind might as well be gone.
And for the idiots referenced above who say that all this Russsia stuff is "fake", I'll take the CIA, FBI, and NSA's word about spying before any of you conspiracy-spouting morons in the peanut gallery - I do value professionalism, if nothing else.
No. Unless somehow your corporate security requires a lot more than the Fortune 500 companies I've worked at, plus all of the smaller ones.
About the only places I've seen normally needing "no phones" security are locations requiring high security by the government or AV labs. Anything else for most companies is paranoid overreach and a grave breach of common sense. Anything else between "no phones" and "take pictures and recording of everything" can be dealt with by legal agreements and consequences.
I think if you have room for a picture of turds in your character set, you have been given too much space.
Ultimately, that's true for any company that doesn't have techies up to the CEO level. At some point, someone who has no clue about IT will be doing the hiring of (at least) IT management.
Yes. The "swamp draining" continues unabaited.
Maybe they should look at expanding their Medicaid program to cover more people before buying new toys.
Do all open source developers have the maturity of two year-olds? It would appear so from the wifi hijinks at the conference.
Yeah, probably. We don't normally get our panties in a twist unless someone is actually hurt.
Well, I'm 60+ and I like Clojure.
I guess that puts me on Mars.
If it wasn't the Chinese selling the Ecuadorans the gear, it would be the Israelis or the Europeans or us. It's not like this stuff is exactly uncommon these days.
They probably got it cheaper buying direct from the original manufacturer.
Does it matter if Bob Cratchet is a contractor or FTE? Either way, Scrooge is looking to get rid of him as soon as he can. It's the power imbalance in the system that's the problem, not the specifics of the employment contract.
What is your view on this "forced subscription" model?
From the point of view of the company that actually owns the software, it's great - lower customer service cost, a guaranteed revenue stream, and no bullshit like license audits. What's not to like?
Oh - you don't own the software? You don't like their licensing? Well, their license is all you ever had - at least legally. And you can still run those old versions that you "own" - just on insecure, out-of-date OS'es.
What - you don't like those options? (There really is no pleasing customers) Too bad - enough people like Adobe and Autocad's products that they're willing to pony up the monthly fee to have access to specifically those products (Try to get a Photoshop user to switch to Gimp). And there's more than enough users to keep Adobe and Autocad in business.
I guess that the bottom line is that if you don't actually own your own tools (which you haven't since forever), you don't have a lot of legal right to complain. Or really any economic right - I mean most other users are OK enough with the licensing scheme not to switch - what's wrong with you?
It's the corporation's software - they own it and license it to you. If you don't like the license terms, don't use the software.
Is it just my impression that Intel didn't do squat during the past half year, and only started searching for fixes now that the vulnerabilities are public?
I'm sure Intel did all the things with respect to the patch - set up project management, got the build system in order, prepared the branding strategy, and carefully examined the problem legally. You want technical issues fixed? That happens after the project is set up in companies as large as Intel.
All you should need to do is shove the name of the kid's high-school, their high-school grades, a list of extracurricular activities, their facebook feed, and their essay into an AI application and let it do the deciding based on those. Could be much more efficient and accurate than admissions officers and their shortcuts (which is what the tests are).
I believe you mean the Washington Post. Way to start another fake news meme.
Yes. Not only can you buy puts on BTC,as well as shorting long options. However, both markets have relatively high volatility, so the costs to invest in these instruments could be a bit high for a while. Also not to mention the old saying that "The market can stay irrational longer than a man can stay solvent, " which should be observed in all cases.
Getting old. Although you wouldn't like the alternative to avoiding that.
but it bore the man's signature, so it's not like you would assume it isn't real.
But it didn't - it bore a forgery of the man's signature by the tattoo artist. Unless he took the tattoo pen himself and signed his name on his own chest (quite interesting feat, if you ask me), it's not his legal signature.
It's one of the hipster names for programmer. Please keep up. Git along li'l bits.